Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览保罗·格特弗里德(Paul Gottfried)档案
根本原因
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

The Crisis Behind Our Crisis, Alexander Boot, St. Matthew Publishing, 326 pages

It is commonly believed that the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree. In the case of Alexander Boot and his celebrated son Max, we may have a grand exception to this rule. It is indeed hard to associate father and son in either their views or their prose. While the son grinds out neoconservative agitprop for the “华尔街日报”, the father expresses thoughts that question all the conventional progressive opinions of the age.

His close friend Anthony Daniels (also known as Theodore Dalrymple), who introduces this book on the spiritual roots of our present economic crisis, praises Alexander Boot’s “implacable logic” and “grasp of history.” Equally apparent for Daniels is that Boot writes with a facility that is all the more amazing given that he did not leave Russia until 1973, when he was already a grown man. His first language is Russian—he graduated from Moscow University—and his previous book was a critical appraisal of the Tolstoy. Also noteworthy is that Boot, like Dalrymple, spends much of his time in the French countryside, where he and his bilingual wife, pianist Penelope Blackie, own a welcoming home.

In The Crisis Behind Our Crisis, we are offered an extended homily on the wages of greed. Boot examines the inflation of credit, the frequency of ill-advised bank loans, and reckless government fiscal policies. He addresses these knotty problems with definite expertise. The “successful business career” mentioned on the dust jacket refers to the many decades of his professional life spent doing public relations for some of the commercial interests he treats contemptuously in his book.

Boot explores the metaphysical and moral origins of what are usually viewed as strictly financial questions. A complaint to which he keeps returning is the attempt by social scientists to understand “shifts in human behavior” through predictive paradigms. Conventional wisdom has it that one should be able to anticipate “tectonic shifts” and “tremors in the market” by plotting twists and turns in collective behavior. The repeated failure to “paradigm” accurately, however, has not led those doing this work to reconsider their craft. Instead they pester us with alternative mathematical models.

Although not a conscious disciple of Ludwig von Mises, Boot follows the Austrian economist by treating skeptically those who claim to be predicting economic behavior. He is also unsympathetic to those who overspend, and he shuns the bromide that it’s the government’s business to bail out individuals or corporate interests that have been driven by “gluttonous appetites” into making bad financial choices.

Much of what Boot discusses in his work is not economic. The Crisis Behind Our Crisis is mostly about history, philosophy, and the Christian convictions of the author. Although it is never explicitly mentioned, the author underwent a conversion to Christianity, in the form of High Church Anglicanism, with the Reverend Dr. Peter Mullen—the first person whom he thanks in this work, for “keeping me on the straight and narrow.” Although the reference is to Father Mullen’s metaphysical insights, one might also imagine that Boot considers him a spiritual advisor since he attends his chapel with great regularity.

Nonetheless it would be a mistake to consider Boot a traditional Anglican, in the sense of being someone searching for a 通过媒体 between Rome and Geneva. His High Church inclinations are so over the top that the only religion he seems to be willing to defend is pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism. He is highly critical of other expressions of the Christian faith, including Eastern Orthodoxy and most particularly Reformation Protestantism. Luther and Calvin get the back of his hand, and before Boot is through with the Reformation fathers, we learn that they were driven by their theological obstinacy into believing in “arbitrary predestination” and the utter worthlessness of human nature.

Boot also devotes considerable space to Luther’s unkind references to Jews from his 餐桌谈话 and stresses the direct link between the German Reformer and the Holocaust. He ambitiously digs up obscure slighting references to Jews ascribed to Calvin, who has been—with some justification—attacked by Catholics for “Hebraizing” Christianity. By the time Boot, who is of Jewish origin, is done with this brief, one might imagine that the Reformation was an anti-Semitic outburst.

The historical facts point in a different direction. Protestant countries almost without exception were more tolerant of Jews than Catholic ones. While Spain and Portugal were expelling Jews, the Calvinist Palatinate, Holland, and Cromwell’s England were granting them asylum. For all the anti-Semitic remarks one might find in early Protestant figures, one would have even less trouble locating such language among their Catholic contemporaries. The most theologically important and politically powerful medieval Pope, Innocent III, made it obligatory for Jews living under his rule to wear yellow stars.

Boot would like to have it both ways. After telling us that Luther and other Reformers held a “profoundly pessimistic view of human nature,” for which Boot criticizes them, we are then told that Protestants pushed the West toward its present excesses of materialism and self-centeredness. Boot is correct in making both observations; nonetheless, it would be necessary for him to deal with the problem of unintended consequences in order to show how the Reformation led to the modern era. The path from one to the other was far more crooked than Boot suggests.

Despite these conceptual weaknesses, the author is justified in trying to see the whole picture when he deals with how the past became the present. In a discussion with his son, who was then preparing for his neoconservative employers the authorized narrative about the war in Iraq, Boot asked what Max had read about the Crusades. He was told that “outside reading” was not necessary. When he inquired further what Max had learned about Iraq, he was curtly dismissed with this rejoinder: “more than enough to write about.” This is exactly the opposite of how the father proceeds, which is by looking for root causes in the distant past.

Although there are many brilliantly written passages in his book, the ones that stand out are in his dissection of “liberal democracy.” His ridicule of this now fashionable deity is withering:

立即订购

Liberal democracy, so beloved of American neoconservatives that they are prepared to lay about them like MacDuff to spread it to every tribal society on earth, is in fact neither truly democratic nor particularly liberal. As it presupposes the ad infinitum expansion of a centralized state’s ability to acquire ever-growing power over the individual, it is not liberal in any other than the virtual sense of the word. And as the state has dictatorial power (in spite of putting people through the charade of virtual elections every few years to make them believe they govern themselves), it is not democratic. In other words, ‘liberal democracy’ has become nothing but a mendacious slogan of a virtual world.

Note that Boot, a self-proclaimed monarchist, does not show even the slightest taste for any kind of “real democracy.” He thinks most people are not eager to look after themselves as “individuals,” and democracy in practice leads inevitably to centralization and bureaucratic control. To “today’s conservatives” who gripe that “growing centralization undermines democracy,” Boot responds, “This is like saying that pregnancy undermines sex or bankruptcy undermines fiscal responsibility.” When French or British citizens “meekly hand over half their income (or more) knowing that the only result of this transfer will be an increase in the state’s power to extort even more,” they are being true democrats. Should one expect different conduct from those who have neither the interest nor the talent to rule over themselves?

As for the neoconservative truism that democracies never seek war, Boot offers a dramatically different take: “There exist only two reasons for modern states to refrain from fighting wars. One, they feel they do not need a war to increase their power at the time. Two, they fear they may not remain in power as a result.” Boot proceeds to point out that America’s great warrior presidents in the 20th century did not have to worry about either of these restraints when they embroiled their country in overseas bloodbaths.

It might be instructive to compare these observations to a recent syndicated column by Jonah Goldberg on the “genius of liberal democracy.” Unlike Alexander Boot, whose book is printed by an impecunious Anglo-Catholic press, Goldberg and his tributes to America unbounded are read by millions. That is because Goldberg’s views have vastly greater journalistic resources behind them. But this has nothing to do with the inherent logic of the views. The reason, says Goldberg, that our liberal democracy has done so well is that it “mostly means free to be me.” “Freedom in much of the world remains ‘free to be us’,” but apparently the “genius of liberal democracy is that it allows both conceptions to flourish simultaneously, often in healthy tension. Far from perfect, liberal democracy offers the most people the most respect.”

While for Boot liberal democracy poses an historical and semantic problem, for neoconservative writers the same phenomenon does not require painstaking definition. It is just something to be celebrated as uniquely good, whatever the hell it means. The whole thing is about being “free to be me” even while occasionally allowing us “to be free to be us.” The lesson conveyed by the success of Goldberg or Alexander’s son Max is that in our modern media society, it may be counterproductive to know too much political theory. One just wants to cultivate influential friends and let them take it from there.

保罗戈特弗里德是伊丽莎白敦学院拉芬斯佩格人文学科教授,也是 Encounters: My Life With Nixon, Marcuse, and Other Friends and Teachers 等作品。

(从重新发布 美国保守党 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 思想 •标签: 欧洲权利 
隐藏10条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. Kevin 说:

    His book is not available on amazon.com which states that it is out of print. I may have been interested in reading it, but what is the point of reviewing a book to which I cannot gain access?

  2. mpresley 说:

    “As for the neoconservative truism that democracies never seek war…:

    Is this really what is asserted? On its face it seems an odd thing, indeed.

    Whatever the case, some argue that the idea of democracy (understood as popular sovereignty) manifesting outside a small to moderate scale, is untenable. Certainly a country the size of the US is only marginally governable from either an electoral or otherwise representative process. A citizen’s vote becomes so diluted as to be meaningless (nevermind the fundamental question-very important to any idea of democracy-of who the citizens are).

    Therefore, policy (both domestic and foreign) moves on its own, more or less by way of simple inertia, usually in support of what went before, but always in support of those profiting most of all. The next important question, of course, is who profits, most of all?

  3. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    It seems to me that Mr. Boot fails to meet the notability criterion.

  4. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    “In other words, ‘liberal democracy’ has become nothing but a mendacious slogan of a virtual world.”

    Memorable line, and accurate. But freedom will always survive at the margins.

  5. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    One does not need to be a High Church Anglican to read and understand Nassim Nicholas Talib’s book, “The Black Swan”. Admittedly, Charles Peirce did become an Episcopalian, turning from positivism to a deeper rationality. And Peirce and (William) James laid the intellectual foundations of modern social science. The – misuse – of the term paradigm is perhaps understandable, since Thomas Kuhn himself was not always consistent in his use of the term. Nonetheless, the intellectual shallowness of the Boot family is perhaps the indirect lesson Gottfried wishes to impress on the reader. Gottfried himself may be wrong most of the time, but, never, never shallow.

  6. icr 说:

    “至于民主从不寻求战争的新保守主义真理”

    大约 20 年前,他们一直在说民主国家从不开战 彼此。 这很方便地忽略了这样一个事实,即新保守主义者认为,对于自我定义的民主国家(英国、美国)寻求与他们定义为非民主国家的战争是完全可以的。

  7. When one thinks with slogans about what are presently designated ‘liberal democracies’, it is easy to overlook that in the depths, these large commercial republics that encourage maximal participation in the political process accord greatly with what Aristotle called ‘mixed regimes’.

    Sure, they may, for a relatively brief time fall prey to the interests of this or that oligarchical faction and be dragged into any number of perilous ventures, both external (foreign entanglements) and internal (violations of subsidiarity and denaturing the currency in order to favor factions that seek to gain a temporary ascendency).

    On the whole, though, ‘liberal democracies’ tend to keep on an even keel for the long haul, and sanity tends to gain the upper hand for the majority eventually (even if it ever remains tenuous).

    There is no historical evidence to show that hereditary monarchies with either designation for life, or for temporary duration, are superior in the long run.

    And the historical record for wasteful wars and corruption entered into by regimes that were formally monarchical or oligarchical is arguably equal to, or worse than, any that one might contrive for what have come to be termed ‘liberal democracies’.

  8. Somehow Gottfried’s string of non sequitors rambles from “the spiritual roots of our present economic crisis” to the author’s persecution complex (“… in our modern media society, it may be counterproductive to know too much political theory” or even half as much political theory as Gottfried knows in his sleep).

    Whether Gottfried knows it or not, Protestant Canada and non-Christian China avoided an American-style economic crisis by regulating their banks’ investments and mortgage lending. Neither religion nor neo-con friendships had anything to do with it.

    This article can be summed up by one memorable word from Gottfried’s: “Quack.” Of course, I’m talking about the deservedly better known Gottfried — Gilbert.

  9. I’ve no idea why Mr. Baldrin is scolding me for lunging in my review from theological issues to economic questions. I am summing up Mr. Boot’s book, not providing a negative judgment about Protestant Canada (if that is what Canada still is) or the People’s Republic of China. It was moreover unclear to me that in writing the review I was belittling the achievements of Protestant societies. That was certainly never my intention.

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Paul Gottfried的评论